Richard Gage, AIA, debates Mark Roberts, Tour Guide: NY TV: "HardFire"

The TV show "Hardfire" debate with Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts is now posted on Google Video. It is in 2 parts — each about 28 minutes in length.

Description: In this two-part program, Richard Gage, AIA, San Francisco Bay area architect and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, debates Mark Roberts on the events of September 11, 2001. John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York, hosts. Originally (to be) aired July 15 and July 22, 2008. Taped June 18, 2008. Buy a high-resolution copy of the program on DVD, MiniDV, or VHS at the program's web site:




The Controlled Demolition debunker who tried to get on John Feal's good side to bad mouth us, and convince him not to associate with us. Didn't Michael Jackman confront the Tour Guide on the ISI during a show of Hardfire, and for some reason, that clip didn't make it online?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


....A tour guide expert. Is that the best the official side can throw at us? I am at work and can't watch it here , but i can't wait to see this !


Richard Gage's eyewitnesses are mistaken, but Mark Robot's witnesses are honest......suuuure. Mark Robot's various blogs (which he keeps many anonymous names surely) are nothing but ad hominem attacks and never once does The Tourguide offer any scientific analysis about the claims he makes... he just attacks people behind the veil of his computer screen, but acts like a nice, reasonable human in person.

I think it's clear that there are no experts who can explain away building 7.

Somebody also needs to teach The Tourguide the concept of Plank's Constant. Steel cannot glow yellow or gold, unless a temperature is sufficient to do so. It just doesn't appear that way on a lark.

I wonder...

... if Mark Roberts happens to be Petgoat?

No Goat

Off track on this one, move on.

No, I think Petgoat is a dude from Cali.

I think Leftwright who blogs here knows Petgoat personally.

The real Petgoat

the real petgoat is Brian Good from SanFrancisco as exposed by William Rodriguez last February. He also uses the name Contrivance on Wikipedia and Puntaxsweeney on youtube. The strange thing here is that he works with Richard Gage! it is alledge that Mr. Good infiltrates groups with the excuse to help them as a volunteer. Once inside he attacks activist from within. He showed erratic behavior towards Rodriguez last year and is, allegedly, currently vandalising his page on Wikipedia. Ask Rodriguez, since he exposed him last february. Why Richard supports this guy is beyond many in the movement. Besides that, Richard was powerful and direct, you could see Roberts frustration. Great thing is that Roberts called himself the expert who knows the oral histories better than anyone else in the WORLD! Guess what, we could issue a challenge to Roberts since we know some of the actual people that transcribed the oral histories and will love to go face to face with hiim on this claim. By the way, they are not members of the 9/11 truth movement.


Anyone think of dropping Richard Gage a line on this??

Perhaps give him a phone call??

Please go ahead

I know he is aware of this whole thing ( Gage ). Even people in California told him. Brian Good used the 9/11 architects computer email to send emails to willie's supporters, attacking him. I don't think Rodriguez will support Gage until he disconects from this guy. I may be wrong so don't quote me on that part as correct.


needs to get behind Gage 100%.

"..the real petgoat is Brian

"..the real petgoat is Brian Good from SanFrancisco as exposed by William Rodriguez last February. He also uses the name Contrivance on Wikipedia and Puntaxsweeney on youtube. The strange thing here is that he works with Richard Gage!..."

This is disturbing information.

Can you pls provide some proof of this? Do you have any links that prove Brian Good is the petgoat and is indeed working with Gage?

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

is true

Mensa217 is correct. One correction , I really support Richard Gage. and consider him a friend. I won't tell him who to hang around with.
Love this exchange with low life Roberts.
William Rodriguez
World Trade Center Survivor
President of the Hispanic Victims Group, Victims Support Group

Thanks for the correction Willie!

that is why I sid "is alledge" to keep it within the board rules. constitutional911, I have no problem to prove it and also to publish his emails to several people . I only need the permission from those "people" to publish them here. Since most of it is public information, I have no problem with it. But first, why don't you contact Richard Gage and ask him? I think he will tell you the whole truth. I admire Gage and his sincerity and know he will also stand by this information.

Thank you, William Rodriguez, for being a class act

and focusing on what's important. And even more thanks for all your continued hard work.

I hope that you are getting enough rest and are able to spend enough time with your wife.

Yes, I know Brian Good pretty well and have worked with him on events in the past. He built the 8' x 12' 9/11 Commission Report with holes in it that many of you have probably seen.

Several of us tried to dissuade him from his unfounded attacks on Mr. Rodriguez to no avail, I'm afraid to say. We also pointed out the potential hassle to Richard Gage, but left it up to him as to how to handle it. Richard is a true Christian, a great guy to work with and I'm sure that he will handle this with care and kindness.

While there is a back story or two here, it has been my experience to focus on the positive and let the "human elements" work there way forward as they almost always do in the end.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” - Thomas S. Szasz

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” - Mahatma Gandhi

I try to be wise and strong whenever possible.

I was under the impression that "Mark Roberts" had left the country, I guess he just took a long seminar in OCT talking points before returning to his inanity.

Love is a verb, brothers and sisters, let's get busier!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

What's important is truth.

Logic helps. Col. Sparks attacks me for my inability to prove that something doesn't exist.

I had some excahnges with "petgoat"--

--whoever he his. What was odd about the prat is no matter how many times you asked him to document/reference his allegations he wouldn't. He'd dance around like a debunker on one hand --" I can't prove something that's not true", --- but, like a no-plane-troll, expected you to go on his say so.

What a wanker.

Richard Gage - Additional Media

It pisses me off......

Roberts calling Gage a liar. Who's this asshole think he is? In regards to the molten iron Gage needed to show
Goss from NIST lying out his ass.
Gage is an intelligent gentleman. Roberts is an asshole.
So one question for Mark. Yes you are no expert. You say your quoting experts from the official fairy tale.
Why won't they debate our experts? Sorry make it two questions.
Don't you think this is interesting enough for a major debate with major prime time media coverage?
I would also like to add where are the photo's of the roaring fires in WTC#7 ? Hell for that matter where's the video from the Dept of Transportation at the Pentagon?
I wouldn't expect a tour guide to have the common sense to see that buidings don't collapse like Mt Saint Helens.
Ok Mark let's say fourteen seconds for the collapse. Still too damn fast bonehead !

Let's build a JUGGERNAUT. [Build]

JUGGERNAUT: "a force regarded as unstoppable, that will crush all in its path."

One thousand architects is a JUGGERNAUT. One thousand architects and engineers is a JUGGERNAUT that will roll right over the few dozen government sponsored experts and make them squashed baloney.

Less than 2 minutes.

Can you imagine 1,000 architects and engineers supporting the fact that explosives were used? Come on...Who can fight that?...what is the opposition gonna say?...Debunkers and the media can not counter a 1,000 architect JUGGERNAUT. Congress will have to take notice or suffer embarrassment. Presenting 9/11 TRUTH to the public will become a cake walk with a 1,000 JUGGERNAUT.

Support Richard Gage. Email every architect and engineer that you can find.

Good idea TomT

Obviously WTC7 was brought down by explosives. Silverslime even admits this on film. "The building was pulled." I have two sons that are engineers and they both agree the building was pulled. I don't think it would be that hard to get 1000 engineers to point this out.

Me Too, Great idea Tom T and maddog

We could have an engineer recruitment drive.

We will have to overcome the fact that many companies may retaliate against their employees for supporting the 911 Truth position, even though it must be obvious to them that it is the correct one. I have run into that with some architects and engineers that I know. They don't want to jeopardize their jobs and substantial income. There is a collective RED ROVER among large architectural and engineering firms, similar to the collective resistance to advertising on progressive radio stations by large corporations. They don't want to rock the status quo boat for fear of retaliation against them by BushCo and friends.

What did he say?

Did Mark Roberts actually say that WTC7 did not resemble a controlled demolition? Then what kind of collapse did it resemble?

Everyone who watches the collapse of WTC7 thinks that it looks like a controlled demolition. This is just more nonsense from a "debunker".

Mark Roberts, a self-described "generalist" and sick-o

Mark Robert's use of the "Ad Hominem" debate form reveals a serious personality disorder.
Is he currently on medications?...or a suicide watch-list?


Follow the rent

Who's funding the debunkers? Mark's a smart guy, but too smart to be just a local tour guide unless he has a trust fund or owns the business. I'll bet he works for Langley. I will admit that he's good at his spin task until you scratch a little deeper. Richard should weed out the few glaring errors that get repeated over and over (no floor pans found), despite evidence to the contrary. Any common idiot can see that the structures were taken down with some help- look at the dust clouds alone. We've become a nation of ad men (liars). Hold your own Richard, history will be on your side as long as honest souls have the chance to write the last word.


I think you're giving him too much credit. If his past was completely fabricated, why would they choose to make him a "tour guide" (something I've never even seen him admit in any of his public appearances)? Seriously, can you think of any *worse* professions, in terms of scientific credibility? Garbage collector & DMV clerk are the only two that come to mind.


Agree! Janitor was already taken by willie. So he attack him for the tittle!

I was glad to see Mr. Gage

I was glad to see Mr. Gage talking about 9/11, however, seeing Mark Roberts was nearly unbearable. Mark Roberts is a tour guide and he's debating an architect, it just doesn't match. anyway, Mr Gage, as always, deliuvers the Truth pitch perfect. Mark Roberts needs to get a life.

Why pay demoltions experts huge sums of money & spend

weeks/months of planning & preparation to implode a skyscraper when you can just pelt it with some debris & set a few fires to accomplish the same thing ???

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:


THAT only happens on September 11 2001.

And never never again.


19 guys and NORAD - US Space Command etc bunker down.

Cobalt Blue Skies and Dumbed Down Public.

And the dumbed down public STILL believes it.


Cheney Double Delusion Halliburton & Co Special Burgers that many have swallowed wholesale.

Well some of us never ate it and others threw up a long long time ago.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Cosmo Kramer

was a better "ny tour guide" than this guy.


What's odd here is why this bozo can't see the lack of attention to this from the media. He must find the news more entertaining with coverage of Brittney Spears.
It also puzzles me as to why he gives a shit defending the official fairy tale?
Impress me Mark. Let's see you get some major prime time coverage of a debate.

Well done Mr, Gage

Hrm, these episodes of Hardfire are actually fairly balanced, except for dropping Gage on the phone periodically... Somehow I doubt Roberts will take down his website and quit like he promised he would during the debate.

Anyways well done, many people got woken up while watching this I'm sure.

thanks for putting this up

At least Roberts admited that there were very high
tempatures @ all the collapses, weeks after & molten
metal was observed.

I liked Gage's common sense argument of where did the
100+ stories go? This is a strong common sense
argument. Since the building collapsed in it's own foot
print, there should have been a hell of a lot more debris.

I think he could make this more obvious by using his
physical models.

I thought the moderator did a great job & wouldn't be
suprised to know he is a truther.

Bravo Richard Gage! Excellent Presentation!

It wasn't even close. Richard Gage has an airtight presentation. He came across as he is, highly credible and forthright.

The other party failed with his attempt at parlor tricks he must have seen on an episode of Perry Mason. He had no examples. He produced hearsay evidence with no substantiating documents. He appears to have "mailed it in" as we say in the radio business. Gage was strong with the confidence of preparedness and documentation, and the confidence of having the truth on his side. Well done!

Thank you Mr. Gage!

Gage's experiment, with the

Gage's experiment, with the cardboard boxes, will go in history as the greatest scientific experiment since Galileo dropped lead balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa!

The Gage Refutation

We could call it the "The Gage Refutation". It's a very accessible, memorable and replicable demonstration.

This reminds me of my Eiffel Tower Analogy.

I'm so glad Richer Gage is part of this movement. He is credible, well spoken, smart and can hold his own in a debate. Also, ae911truth is a formidable contribution to the movement.

Richard, thank you! You are making history.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
~William Colby, former CIA Director~

Galileo, Where is the video for the cardboard boxes?

Galileo, Where is the video for the cardboard boxes? I would love to see that. I must have missed it.

Keep up the great work RICHARD!

We love you!

With you in Solidarity,
WeAreChangeLA -

Ditto to all of the above.....

However,in future "debates" I would suggest including the photos of the hotel in Madrid burning like a torch and an explanation of NIST's manipulation of data entered into their computer models after the experiments on their physical models failed. In my opinion,the movie, Zero:911, did an excellent job ( if their souces are accurate) of debunking the NIST study.

Off topic here:
Hi Bruno! I enjoyed traveling with you and our mutual friend to the David Ray Griffen event in Brentwood. However, my cell phone died..along with many of my contacts. Call again sometime if you want to stay in touch.. D

Great Work Richard !

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

This debate was a great example of what I call Taking A Stand For 9/11 Truth and backing it up with scientific evidence. Let's help Richard get those 1000 architects & engineers. It shouldn't be hard with the visible scientific proof we have. Great work Richard !
Take Care Matt

Mark Roberts

is not a person seeking the truth

This is painful to watch.

Roberts understands how to fool the ignorant

I know from experience that cheerleading is the order of the day on 911blogger. So I expect plenty of negative votes for these comments. How much stronger this movement would be if it was more amenable to self-criticism.

Speaking as one who agrees with Gage on most everything 911-related and who suspects Roberts in a paid disinformation agent:

The sad fact is that Roberts did a better job of obfuscating the controlled demolition theory of the WTC with uninformed listeners than Gage did in upholding it. Roberts really is an effective, even brilliant, sophist. Moreover, his vocal manner and body language exude a calm confidence which, much as I hate to say it, is impressive.

Conversely, Gage doesn't seem to know how to tackle this kind of polished trickery. (Few would, of course.) He gets angry and excited, which many novice listeners will mistake for insecurity and fanaticism. He's unprepared for some of Roberts's claims, which he perhaps could have prepared for by carefully looking through Roberts's website. (I admit to speculating on this latter point.) And instead of pinning down Roberts on his fatuous arguments, Gage is too quick to move on to other ones, giving the impression that Roberts has won on the last one.

Roberts is a well-trained and well-rehearsed rhetorical tactician, and perhaps it is that Gage's background in a technical field has left him ill-prepared to deconstruct that degree of disingenuousness.

As our movement grows and we become a greater threat to our rulers, we can expect more of these seasoned disinformation agents to undertake these campaigns. Our side would do well to study the nature of these attacks and discern how to turn them back upon the attackers.

Looks like the host John Clifton

ran for NY Gov. under the Libertarian party in2006. On his webpage he has a re-open 9./11 investigation
bullet point.

I'd like to hear more from this guy-

mcfrandy, it's true that

mcfrandy, it's true that Roberts is a skilled debater but I thought he resorted to lots of ad hominems and kept calling Gage a liar. He seemed to be a lot more shifty, personal and aggressive than Gage.

Gage came across as rather composed (maybe not so much in the "Gage Refutation" cardboard demonstration) and credible. So when Roberts labels him a nutty liar is just doesn't stick. It's incongruent with the image Gage projects.

Also, the fact that Gage was not on site didn't help with the fluidity of the debate. Neither debater addressed each other jabs exhaustively so the listener was left hanging sometimes. But this is to be expected due to the time constraints.

Still, you've got to give it to Roberts for defending the OCT. He's a dying breed. He plays an important role in our movement in that he plays the role of the opposition. Usually we just get ignored, ridiculed, but very rarely do OCTers openly debate us on the facts. There are so few common people willing to defend the OCT outside the government spooks (assuming Roberts isn't an op of course!).

I just wish we could have a series of full 2 hours sessions on specific areas of 9/11, with both sides debating each other with a couple of moderators, and a spectator jury to vote it out on each issue raised. We could then have a tally summarizing the results.

Ultimately, the best place to debate these issues is in a court of law with a judge, formal proceedings, accredited experts, witnesses under oath and subpoena powers.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
~William Colby, former CIA Director~

Being correct isn't enough

"mcfrandy, it's true that Roberts is a skilled debater but I thought he resorted to lots of ad hominems and kept calling Gage a liar. He seemed to be a lot more shifty, personal and aggressive than Gage."

Roberts seems to be that way because we know a lot about the subject under discussion. But, to the average Joe, Roberts can just as easily be seen as a smart, together guy who's done his homework and has cut through all the baloney surrounding the WTC on 9/11. It's painful to face, but that's what we're up against.

And, let's face it, ad hominems often work. Most people lack the tools of analysis to reject them on their own so long as they sound "reasonable." That's one reason they're used so much. To counter ad hominems, you need to draw attention to how your opponent uses them falsely and unfairly, which Gage consistently failed to do.

"Gage came across as rather composed (maybe not so much in the 'Gage Refutation' cardboard demonstration) and credible. So when Roberts labels him a nutty liar is just doesn't stick. It's incongruent with the image Gage projects."

It may not exactly stick, but it's apt to be seen as credible. Gage simply fails to address personal attacks.

For instance, early on Roberts states flatly that there are x number of false statements in Gage's PowerPoint presentation, y number of misleading statements, and the like. Gage lets him completely off the hook around this, not demanding to know exactly what these numerized items are. Yet much later on the show Gage refers to some items whereupon Roberts immediately demands to know exactly what they are. (Here, too, Gage drops the ball and just goes on to some other point.)

"Also, the fact that Gage was not on site didn't help with the fluidity of the debate. Neither debater addressed each other jabs exhaustively so the listener was left hanging sometimes. But this is to be expected due to the time constraints."

True enough, but Roberts effectively used verbal sleight of hand to obscure how he didn't deliver on his claims, whereas it was transparent when Gage did it.

Of course, one of the larger and smarter aspects of Roberts's performance is that he kept the focus entirely on attacking the CD theory of the WTC rather than defending the alternative (which, as it happens, is hard even to define, as it's repeatedly changed and NIST is yet officially to weigh in on), so his only real burden was to sow doubts. I doubt whether Gage was even conscious of that aspect.

"Still, you've got to give it to Roberts for defending the OCT. He's a dying breed. He plays an important role in our movement in that he plays the role of the opposition. Usually we just get ignored, ridiculed, but very rarely do OCTers openly debate us on the facts. There are so few common people willing to defend the OCT outside the government spooks (assuming Roberts isn't an op of course!)."

I expect Roberts is an op: He's way too well-financed, polemically sophisticated, and well-placed as official tour guide of the WTC site to be anything else.

The only reason this debate happened was because it was outside the FTC-owned and -regulated broadcast media. Normally debate about 9/11 truth is just excluded, period. But because this debate was going to happen anyway, thanks to relatively unregulated public access television and the NYLP, a specialist on 9/11 polemics was all too happy to be there to counter the 9/11 truth specialist. Too bad Roberts didn't have to face off against someone with much more professional experience in countering sophistry, such as David Ray Griffin or Graeme MacQueen.

that damn computer

If we're judging them on their composure in front of a TV camera, then your points are well taken. The same holds true on their debating techniques. Gage's work is exemplary, however. As all true science professionals should, he's trying to keep the discussion focused on the scientific evidence. To the lay viewer, Roberts might score some points. But to any architects or engineers who might be watching, I think Gage wins, hands down. And that's important. Since you breeched the moratorium on criticizing Gage, one thing that irks me about his presentations is his dependency on his computer and Powerpoint slides. He's always fussing with his damn computer. He comes across much better, as on the BBC program, when he just sits there and speaks directly to the questions at hand. He suffers from the "I need to get it all in" syndrome and needs to learn the value of the cliche, "less is more." The art of TV or radio interviews is the art of controlling the discussion and has little to do with any facts you might bring to the table. You mentioned Griffin. Even he was done in by Tucker Carlson. Being on TV is not easy. No worries. Over time these guys will polish up their techniques.

I agree...

However I do not think it was Richard Gage's fault... Roberts being the arrogant, attention whore he is... he basically sucked up 90% of the time with his lisping wart ass diarrhea mouth.

Roberts is a disgusting prick. Who also happens to be a total liar..and if he is not getting PAID "with other peoples hard earned money"as in his words and first ad hominem attack to Richard Gage in his first sentence to him...

Then he is a total idiot.. and a waste of air.

I have to agree...

... that for a Joe Average novice, Roberts will probably come off as more believable. Mr. Gage gets too excited too easily, and therefore, can be perceived as "clinging to an idea" rather than being "grounded on facts". He also tends to pile up the facts, many of which don't always have a direct bearing on the point at hand, which can be perceived as making up for the solidity of evidence with its quantity.

Overall, however, Mr. Gage is doing a great, great job. He makes good arguments and I like his illustrations as well. The idea of public debate in real time on TV scares me shitless. I think we are fortunate to have somebody like Mr. Gage doing the speaking and debating, so the rest of us have the luxury of analysing and dissecting his presentation. His debating skills, however, need some improvement, imho, especially against a devious opponent such as Roberts. Did you notice those frequent sneaky assertions by Roberts: "By the way, these statements are false", without any elaboration? He seems to try to insert them as quickly and inconspicuously as possible to avoid a rebuttal.

These non-mainstream media appearances are a good training opportunity for Mr. Gage to hone his debating skills for that CNN appearance that might happen in the future. Btw, I think he got Roberts a bit agitated a few times as well, so, kudos for Mr. Gage.

Tour Guide

The frustration and irritation is evident in Mr. Gage's face while trying to hold a somewhat reasonable debate with a psychopath. Tour guide is insane. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a microphone, even on an open air tour bus. This was a waste of Gage's time.


I question the decision to even air a debate between Mark Roberts and Richard Gage. Can you imagine CNN bringing in a licensed architect to give his or her opinion on something, and then bringing in a tour guide to provide a dissenting opinion (i.e., one of those split screen discussions)? It wouldn't happen.

Just to be clear- I'm not questioning Gage's decision to participate, I'm questioning the Producer who paired the two. Gage wouldn't back down because, a) the facts are on his side, and b) it wouldn't send a very good message, even though he would be justified in doing so.

Of course, it's not like there are any Architect, Structural Engineer, or Physicist debunkers - at least none that I'm aware of. That, in and of itself, is very telling.

Gage took a beating considering he has all the facts on his side

all the people posting here already know the truth of 911

roberts isn't addressing them, he's aimed at the average joe who still hasn't figured it out--roberts' job is to confuse the issue just enough to keep joe believing what he already wants to believe anyway--that is the official conspiracy theory

there'll be so many claims an counterclaims that joe won't have time to look at them all

at this, i think roberts succeeds

i'm a huge fan of Gage and think he has done (and is doing) terrific work for 911 truth

his presentation and website are excellent--but I think he should read up on debating technique, research the opposition, and be prepared for the opposition to make stuff up out of whole cloth and have his connection sabotaged, before doing more debates

he's visibly losing his cool here, allowing roberts to slander him and 911 truth--he wasn't prepared for such blatant lies and ad homenim attacks

being a gentleman, he wasn't ready for robert's relaxed treachery--and he underestimated the opposition

he assumed because he has the truth on his side and an overwhelming case that it would be no contest

he was wrong

i hope he'll be better prepared for these kind of tricks in the future, and i think he will be

I agree

Is there a transcript anywhere of this debate?

I'd love to go through it, sentence by sentence, and then post much of it here interspersed with ongoing commentary about Roberts's verbal ploys and how Gage then flubs most of his opportunities to counter them. Admittedly, this is much easier to do when writing at leisure, rather than having to think on one's feet while on the air. But it could be a terrific exercise for us to see what the perps and their flacks are apt to throw back at us as our movement grows, and what to be aware of so as to minimize letting them trip us up.


I haven't watched the debate yet (I plan to soon), but either way, I like your idea. Gage just needs to be ready to point out the numerous logical fallacies that Roberts relies on for his arguments. His web pages are full of them, his past debates have been full of them -- let's face it, we know he doesn't have the truth on his side, so his argument has to be almost entirely fallacious. **

His favorite tricks involve "mistaken" eyewitnesses, appeals to the masses, and equivocation/syllogism (e.g., you say WTC7 was a CD; all CDs have these characteristics; WTC7 wasn't a CD because it was missing one such characteristic).

** Some of his attacks on non-core arguments (e.g., "pull it") are valid -- I really think we need to start conceding those points, because they're completely unnecessary.

great idea

i don't know of one but if you do undertake such a project i'd like to read it based on your perceptive comments

most likely Gage and the other 911 scholars are already (or soon will be) going through this debate to refute all robert's arguments

I wouldn't be too hard on Gage here though since they sabotaged his connection and i can imagine his frustration during the debate of not hearing the points he's supposed to be responding too and then not knowing if his rebuttals can even be heard--i don't think he got visibly angry until that started happening

and that was unfortunate since at that point there's only the camera between him and the audience, so it comes off as him getting angry at the viewer

i appreciate some of your other points about Gage not responding to the ad hominem attacks etc. although roberts probably had some traps laid in his supposed "315 lies on Gage's site" as well and Gage just wanted to stay on point with his presentation. this is where some preliminary research could have helped: Gage could have taken one supposed "lie" refuted it, dismissed the rest and quickly moved on to his real points.

but instead it was roberts who had all of Gage's information and had gone thru it in detail looking for areas where he could obfuscate--so the debate proceeded like a sort of ambush

i have to wonder how much advance notice Gage had of the format and opponent

if he just would have remained calm i think he would have convinced a lot more people

I disagree. Screw the debates...they only muddle fine points.

Gage did a fantastic job. He is an educator. He is a guide to the facts of controlled demolition. Gage is wearing the right hat.

If anyone wants to become a "debater"...then go do it...go do it yourself.

As far as I am concerned, we want to reach out to those people who are willing to look, who are willing to investigate on their own.

No skeptic will be converted by a debate. Debates may bring attention to an issue, but they are so often filled with muddle. The muddle will still have to be sorted out by close personal inspection. Instead, let's focus on educating people.



Let's do that. He is right. Richard asks us over and over and over again to help him out. Let's do that.

Robber Roberts

With the mike going out it appeared that Gage may not have always been able to hear so he couldn't volley back. Technically roberts had the advantage.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Richard's not a street fighter

Glad he didn't stoop to Roberts' level. This is what you get when you have someone like John Gros unwilling and fearful to debate...

Roberts wins...

...the award for the most interruptions. The physical demonstration of the cardboard towers collapsing was a brilliant move by Richard, illustrating the law of conservation of momentum. Roberts IDs himself as a jrefer or jref associate, which means that his skepticism does not extend to the exploits of a criminal administration with a proven track record of grand scale deceit and deception.

Roberts is one sick puppy.

What a jerk, Imagine if you had to live with this guy. He never once addressed the real issues. What is he so sure about? Does he have a theory? He's so smart what does he think happened to WTC 7, It was weakened by fires? It collapsed into it's own footprint at virtually free fall speed WHY? If not controlled demolition what then could cause this to happen. Why has it never happened before? Are all the similar steel office buildings around the world this fragile? Come on dude get off it ! I think he sees this as his chance to get in the spotlight and get attention. Gage should have laughed this guy right off the program he has no expertise and offers no alternate explanation. I feel sorry for the poor souls who are in this guys life, heaven help them.

Building Bowing Inward?

The building did not "Bow inward". The building is tipping and falling outside the footprint. Physics would not allow it to correct and fall straight down without the structure below the collapse being removed below the tipping structure.

We have two identical structures which have been structurally damaged in completely unique manners with absolutely unique fire spread and damage yet both structures catastrophically failed in exactly the same manner collapsing at near free fall speeds into virtually the same debris field pattern.

If you can not see something wrong with this story than you may as well have been the engineers commissioned to clean up the mess left by these attacks on our country.

Never before has a building been demolished from the top down? There is a first time for everything.
Together in Truth!


By the way, does anybody else think Roberts is looking pretty rough these days? He doesn't look well at all..

Gage destroyed Roberts

Roberts might get the 20% or the population that wants to hate.

It came off as the architect vs the tour guide.

The host was fair unlike the regular host who seem like a mole (or not very bright).

Very glad to see the thug Roberts demolished so completely.

The power of fools...

One of the most important aspects of CI...Civil Informationing when dealing with the public is to get a feel for the person with whom you are speaking and trying to make points. Fully 25% of the populace is simply unable to get past their required security obtained from a simple hiearchal structure without which they cannot function emotionally, and thusly , they often become desparate. When these people are encountered, its best to stop the discussion because there is NOTHING good that can come from it. Bystanders looking on will think that the higher functioning person, us, are equal to the lower functioning person, the fool.

In TV and radio engagements its much harder to stop the conversations and to move on to another completely different person or group for another discussion, so, what happens is that you become trapped. Consequently, in such public forums as TV and radio, there is really NOTHING good that can come from some exposures to some media. Certain circumstances indeed TRAP the better person...the VASTLY MORE QUALIFIED person...aka...Richard Gage in this case.

In using my own observational devices I try to look at and listen to such presentations as though I am the average person with an average understanding, or bias against what we are espousing, and go from there.

In this match, the tour guide was elevated into a position of being able to, and qualified to refute the science of an amzing and highly qualified professional. This could have been detected and dealt with BEFORE the agreement to be on the saying no thank you. Its better to "vett" and accept appearances in which there are ACTUAL qualified people who DO believe in science, or, where the more qualified person is able to keep the higher quality of discussion intact. Niether of these happened here.

So, here are 50 comments before mine, and most of them seem to be talking about either small points from the gutter level because this hack drew all of us down into his "ameoba-brained" world. What a waste of our preciuos time and energy. At the end of this broadcast, the average citizen may not understand the VAST differences between these two men, nor the VAST differences in the underpinnings of their counter arguments and presented evidence. And that's a shame, an avoidable shame.

Until we STOP...arguing with fools...associating with fringe people and organizations...and supporting desperate political candidates, we will contunue to be our own worst enemy.

9/11 Truth HAS the REAL stuff here, lets spread it out into arenas in which there are LEGITIMATE viewers, listeners and open minded citizens whether on the streets, or on air.

AirAmericaRadio's Richard Green set us up to have the listeners hear more information from another 9/11 LIAR hack Ron somebody, and he ended up getting a disproportionate amount of airtime. This was by design. This TV interview accomplished the same thing although perhaps not by the host's design as was the case with AirAmericaRadio.

It ALWAYS does harm to end up arguing with a fool...ALWAYS.

We can do better.

Robin Hordon


you are 100% right about arguing w/ fools or annonymous idiots on you-tube. However, Mark Roberts is a very well known non-truther & many people on the disbelieving side, think of him as their leader. After this segment, Roberts crediability is over... o-v-e-r.

& I agree with you that our movement needs higher visibilty & more main stream discussions w/ creditable people.


It doesn't matter.. Mark Roberts is a tour guide, so Gage should not be debating him publicly. If the debunkers want to debate with Gage, they need to find a licensed Architect (or similar). Since there are no licensed Architect debunkers that I'm aware of, that could prove to be tricky.

Think about it - how many times did Mark Roberts (probably a High School dropout) tell Richard Gage that he was "wrong" about something relating to Architecture? Do you understand how absurd that is? Oh, and not only is he telling Gage he's wrong, he's also telling the 405 other Architects and Engineers in that *they* are wrong.

Roberts needs to go back to whatever bridge he's been living under so he can start searching for a real professional Architect to debate with Gage. In the meantime, we'll be sure to let him know if we can find a taxi driver to debate him on the quickest way to get through rush hour traffic on the upper west side.

then we'll be just like the mainstream

who for years refused to debate us because we didn't have architects/engineers or people privy to the "inside information" they had

we should be open to discussion with everyone unless they continue to push theories that have been proven false (ie. no planers or space beamers)

to my knowledge that hasn't happened with roberts yet, tho it soon will

You're comparing apples with oranges

It's one thing not to waste time with fools or with enemy operatives when talking to individuals or small groups. In other words, we shouldn't spend time trying to convert the plainly unconvertable when we could be spending that time educating the undecided and the open-minded.

But media interviews are altogether different. We shouldn't do an interview hoping to chasten an opposition interviewee or convert the moderator. We accept such interviews because they're golden opportunities to reach out the many listeners or viewers. And our movement shouldn't get the reputation of being "afraid" of debating its opponents.

And when your message is normally deliberately excluded from the MSM, that's all the more reason to take advantage of such situations.

The difficulty is that, given the hidden and heavily financed forces who need to prevent us from exposing their crimes, we're apt to face clever and well-rehearsed sophists and disinformation specialists who are expert at tripping up even well-informed opponents.

It takes special skills and aptitudes to successfully confront sophists like Roberts, especially under the stress of having to think on one's feet as one's comments immediately become part of the public record. Some of our spokesmen can do it: David Ray Griffin, for example, has written a whole book countering 9/11 anti-truth sophistry and disinformation. Indeed, people who work in certain professions, such as law or, among academics, within the humanities and social sciences, are apt to be better at this (if, conversely, disadvantaged when it comes to grasping the more technical substantive details).

Gage, an engineer, simply lacks the tools for successfully counterattacking well-polished sophistry. I haven't seen him try, but I expect Steven Jones would have similar difficulties. So I wouldn't want to see either of them try to debate someone like Roberts. But someone like Griffin or Barrie Zwicker would know just what to do. (Some of this has to do with experience, and some has to do with verbal intelligence versus mathematical/spatial intelligence, I suspect.)

Conversely, if our debating opponent is going to be a more technical type -- who's may not be so skilled in verbal trickery -- then a Gage or a Jones may be just what's called for.

I don't know any easy way to arrange all this. I think, as our movement evolves, there should be networking and candid evaluating of what the polemical strengths and weaknesses are of our various spokesmen, so that these spokesmen could be referred to more appropriate venues. And, at some of our conferences, perhaps there could be workshops to educate our activists about how better to deal with the media and public debate situations.

Excellent analysis, McFrandy

Your analysis is excellent and hope to see the day when the 911 movement would be so well-organized?

I've seen Gage quite a bit and don't expect him, as I don't anyone, to be perfect. I do have substantial confidence in him, however.

...don't believe them!

SEM red flakes

Mark Roberts behaved like a bully. He was weak on WTC7 discussion, so resorted to pettiness. He felt stronger on the twin towers and wasn't interested in a debate, just points scoring.

I believe that people like this do serve a purpose.... they provoke those interested in truth to dig a little deeper. They also demonstrate to anyone with an open mind that, faced with someone of Richard Gage's calibre, 'debunkers' are unconvincing at best.

Roberts did make one interesting point which would be nice if it could be discredited..... he claims that Stephen Jones' 'red flakes' composition corresponds with primer paint from the WTC beams..... has anyone looked at that?

I doubt that a few missing (or extra) peaks on the SEM profile would stop Roberts from making this claim....

"Mark Roberts behaved like a bully."

That's our Mark Roberts.

I wonder what his tours are like? Anyone been on one? There a video any where? Would be interesting to see if he's a wee snarky bitch with everyone or if it's just an act.

Can't imagine anyone paying him to be rude on tour...

NYC Tour Guides must be licensed...

NYC law requires that tour guides be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs:
"A person must have a Sightseeing Guide license to guide or direct people to any place or point of public interest. "

The current list of NYC licensed tour guides is here:

Unfortunately for Mark Roberts, his name is NOT on the list. A call to NYCDOC to confirm this produced the same results. Either Mark Roberts is unlicensed and operating illegally, or "Mark Roberts" is an alias.

Public records searches for "Mark Roberts" have not produced any results that appear to match our Mark Roberts.

This is funny though, seems he's a NY Giants fan:

For every human ability...

...a spectrum exists along which each of us fall. Personally, I can tell directions flawlessly (without the aid of GPS or dropped bread crumbs), yet I flunked gym class in high school -- and not for lack of trying.

We can't control the innate gifts and limitations that we have, so there should be no judgement of them. They just are what they are. In that spirit, I want to say that I feel certain that Mark has many gifts and talents that I don't have, but it's clear to me from watching this video that he's simply not that smart.

(As odd as it may seem, on some level, I envy him that. Being born with intelligence is both a benefit and a burden.)

ps: ...just caught these videos now. ...not sure how I missed them.